A philosophical text, a psychoanalyst, and a birthday party.

The Mahabharata, is a fantastic story- with characters that aren't black or white but in varying shades of grey. Covering a rather vast spectrum of issues, it has information you can actually use in day to day life.

My first exposure, and one that left a pretty strong impression on me, of the Mahabharata was the television series that Doordarshan used to show every Sunday morning. I used to watch it regularly. I was about 8-10 years of age.

The Bhagavad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata and before I read the entire text recently, I had memorised the following lines as a little girl. (Thanks to the TV show. This was the opening track)

Yada yada hi dharmasya, glanirva bhavati bharata
Abhyuthanam adharmasya, tadaatmaanam srijami aham,
Paritranaya sadhunam, vinashayaschadushkritam,
Dharma sansthapan aarthay, sambhavaami yuge yuge.

I will not attempt a literal translation. The meaning is basically that since time immemorial, whenever man has gone astray from the path of dharma, the prescribed way of life, whenever evil has overpowered good, the Lord himself has assumed human form and descended to earth, to destroy evil, reinstate dharma and righteousness.

Given the abovementioned, the question that came to my mind was this – if the birth of Lord upon the earth took place in a time of chaos and destruction, of corruption and violence, of the stripping of innocence and the slipping of moral values, then what exactly are we celebrating with Janamashtami, Ram Navami ?(Other religions too, but I am holding Vishnu responsible because it was one of his avatars - reincarnations- who allegedly said the abovementioned)

Do we celebrate because, finally, we have a saviour among us? Someone who will deliver us from the hell we have created for ourselves? Does the celebration mark the end of a long period of darkness? Is the exultation with joy masking a sigh of relief?

What I am basically trying to get at is the difference between the period before the birth of a child, and the birth of the Lord. Both are celebrated, no doubt. Both for largely selfish reasons (Of course, I accept all the flak I may face for saying that the decision to have a child is a purely selfish one. But, well that's that).

What’s the difference then?

The difference that strikes me, is that while the period before the birth of a child need not be a chaotic and dismal one, that before the birth of the Lord, in a human from (which is the only acceptable form for most people, which itself warrants a whole other discussion) necessarily does. That is, he wouldn't even be here if it weren't for our misdeeds etc. The fact that he is around should be accepted as proof that things are not quite as peachy and perfect as they ought to be.

This brings me to the next element. Donald Winnicott. (Before I go further, I must state that my knowledge of Winnicott’s theories and formulations is rather rudimentary. However, I couldn't’t wait for my knowledge to expand before I put these thoughts down. These thoughts will probably expand as and when my knowledge does).

So, Winnicott. For those unfamiliar with him, Donald Winnicott is a Psychodynamic (A tradition that branched off from classical Psychoanalysis) thinker and clinician. He has worked extensively with children, and his writings have allowed us to have a closer understanding of the inner world of a child.

One of his ideas that have stayed with me is that of the child or infant creating its mother- At the risk of oversimplification, it means that for healthy development and identity formation the mother has to be available at just the right time when the child thinks of her or wants her; allowing the child to feel that he/she has conjured her up magically; that she is by him/her and for him/her.

I think mankind carries within itself the Winnicottian child. Just as the child brings the parent, or more specifically the mother into existence, just as the child creates the mother, mankind also creates its God. The child creating the parent is a healthy process, as is mankind creating God I guess. But the sad part is that God is created out of a need more than a wish.

The child’s aggression, creativity and play, are manifested in the manner in which the child tests his environment, his parents, to check if they can withstand his outbursts. If they can, then all is well and the child moves on, grows. Analogously, the chaos and tumult which characterizes the period before the birth of God, could be equated with the child-adolescent like testing of the parent (God is, after all, our supreme mother and father). The child throws its toys about, makes a mess and the mother smiles patiently and lovingly, teaches the child how to restore order. The child is content that his mother can handle him, that he is in good hands, and life is good again. It is essentially the same thing with God.

We need to know that he is around, we need to assure ourselves that he can withstand us. So, to refine the earlier distinction between the birth of the child and the birth of God. In the former case, we give birth to our offspring. In the latter, we give birth to our parent.

All this is not to suggest that one must not celebrate the birth of God the way one does. Who could argue that the repeated re assurances, the repeated rescues the Lord (allegedly) makes for our sake, when we need it the most, is anything but a reason to rejoice?

But the question is, how many such rescues will have to be made, how many re assurances given before we are assured? Perhaps we need to give him a break. Perhaps we need to stop testing him. After all, a mother also loses her cool with her child sometimes. How much do we really want to try his patience?

Its time to stop assuming someone will come and be our saviour. Only then can we stop making a bloody mess of our lives and of this planet. As it is, it would be better if we took care of ourselves. We wouldn't need the poor fellow to leave his own worries behind and come to our rescue.